Monday, January 31, 2005


All Aboard!

As George and his buddies fall all over themselves in celebration of the Iraq election, I thought it might be a good time to take a trip in the Wayback Machine. Tonight's journey takes us back to March 17, 2003. On this day, George W. Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his sons an ultimatum: Leave Iraq within 48 hours or face military action. Let's see what he had to say, shall we?

You know, it's funny. After reading that I would have thought that the purpose of our going to war was because someone was threatening us. What was I thinking? Obviously the whole point was to liberate the Iraqi people. After all, he does mention it at the end.

I can't believe this guy is still in charge. What a joke.

Friday, January 28, 2005


Crazy Day!

No post tonight' folks. kissfan had a crazy day and just can't bear to think about all the different ways George W. Bush is screwing things up. So instead, I'd like to recommend that you go visit It's Morning Somewhere. Tell oldwhitelady that kissfan sent you.

See you all on Monday!

Thursday, January 27, 2005



On January 7, 2005, I wrote:

Then yesterday we learned that columnist Maggie Gallagher was being paid by the Bush administration to promote the White House's marriage initiative.

And if that wasn't enough, today we discovered number three.

So how many more? How many more columnists, journalists, pundits, or commentators have received tax payer money to promote Bush's agenda? My guess? More than we care to count.

The first time I asked Who Else? Now the question is: Who's Next?

Wednesday, January 26, 2005


Reaching Across the Aisle

For the last year I've been corresponding through e-mail with my conservative relative who lives in Texas. He's convinced that the sun rises and sets with George W. Bush. I, of course, have a slightly different opinion. During our correspondence we began discussing the liberalness/conservativeness of the media. He, of course, is a firm believer in the mythical liberal media bias. Oftentimes, he would rant endlessly about the liberal media and liberal celebrities. My favorite quote of his is:

Of course we all know that one of the traits of liberals is that they look out for the little guy. (See quote at the top of this page.) So I find it hard to understand why he hates liberals so much. Nevertheless, he is who he is.

So in the interest of bi-partisanship, I thought I'd help him out a little. You know, reach across the aisle, as they say. After reading this story over at DailyKos, I thought that this could be a useful tool for today's hate-filled conservative. A little Liberals for Dummies if you will. Something they can refer to when they need someone to hate. So without further ado, I give you the Liberal List: Chapter 1 (complete with links for the more obscure).


John Adams
Samuel Adams
James Agee
Sherman Alexie
Muhammed Ali
Marion Anderson
Maya Angelou
Susan B. Anthony
Guillaume Apollinaire
Diane Arbus
Jerome Armstrong
Margaret Atwood
Erykah Badu
Ella Baker
James Baldwin
Roger Baldwin
Josiah Bartlett
Simone de Beauvoir
Ludwig van Beethoven
Walter Benjamin
Wendell Berry
Jello Biafra
Mary J. Blige
Judy Blume
Jon BonJovi
Inez Mulholland Bossevain
Jose Bove
David Bowie
Stewart Brand

To be continued....

Tuesday, January 25, 2005


It's All About the Spin

In baseball, all great hitters will tell you that the secret to hitting is picking up the spin on the pitch. Likewise, all great pitchers will tell you that the secret to pitching is controlling the spin on the pitch. In today's political world, the conservatives are the pitchers and the liberals are the hitters. If we're going to regain any control in our government, we're going to have to do a better job of picking up the spin.

As I was working today, I had MSNBC on the television and they were discussing the Senate debate over Condescending Rice's confirmation. In keeping with the liberal media tradition, they were talking to a Republican congressman about the Democrat's attacks on the handling of the war in Iraq. His response was typical Republican spin, of course. I'm paraphrasing here, but it went something like this: The Democrats are using this opportunity to once again show that they would rather the Iraqi people were still living under the tyrannical boot of Saddam Hussein; or some similarly ridiculous statement. Now I was unable to see the debate today, but I'm willing to bet that there wasn't one Democrat who expressed anything remotely close to this sentiment. But the congressman was pitching hard. He was trying to control the spin.

Of course all of this comes from the "You're either with us or against us" school of thought. In a perfect conservative world there would be no dissent. Everyone would nod their head and smile and go about their business blissfully uninformed. (Unfortunately, this is already happening in some circles in this country.) But nothing is perfect. People make mistakes and it is the job of the opposition to capitalize on them. How many times has an error cost a baseball team a win? (You know what I'm talking about here, Red Sox fans. We all remember 1986.) Or how many times has a game been lost on a bad pitch? (Come on Phillies fans, can you say Mitch Williams?) The fact that Republicans are attacking Democrats for pointing out their mistakes is simply ludicrous. It's their job! Just because other Republicans are bending over and taking it from the Bush administration doesn't mean that everybody should.

Right now there are only a few Democrats that are picking up the spin and making contact with the ball. Barbara Boxer is clearly hitting clean-up for us. My advice to the other Democrats is this: Start swinging the damn bat! You can't hit the ball if you don't swing. When the Republicans throw you a big fat hanging curve like the one I heard today on MSNBC, hit it out of the park. At the very least, foul it off and live to see another pitch.

Of course nobody in the Democratic party would wish for the Iraqis to continue living under the tyrannical boot of Saddam Hussein. The only thing worse than that would be to allow the country to sink into a state of chaos and force them to live under the tyrannical boot of an insurgency.

Monday, January 24, 2005



Hopefully the Democratic party will make good on Al's statement. They could start by making sure that these people get what they deserve.

The Democratic party needs to get in front of this one. If they hesitate (and by hesistate I mean wait more than twenty-four hours), the Republicans will quickly spin these people into the poster-children for all Democrats. If we want to be the party of the values we claim, we can't tolerate this from anyone, including one of our own. If these people are found to be guilty, I hope they receive the maximum punishment allowable by law. Not only are they breaking the law, but they are besmirching the face of the party they are supposed to be advancing.

And if that wasn't bad enough, there's also this.

While what he is doing isn't necessarily illegal, it provides fodder for the wingnuts that like to paint liberals as morally corrupt. It's another instance of one of our own shooting us in the foot. If we continue to give the conservatives this type of red meat we are going to find it very difficult to break their hold on the morals issue.

By getting out in front of both of these issues, we can show that we are against any type of amoralistic behavior even when it involves someone from our own party. This is something the Republicans can't claim as long as they are going to try and bend the rules to protect people like Tom DeLay. Their allegience to one of their own based on party affiliation compromises their moralistic claim. By doing what is right in the two aforementioned situations, we can begin to draw a stark contrast between us and them. We believe that everyone should be held to a higher standard of behavior. They believe that they are immune to that standard.

We are, of course the party of higher morals, but we have to start acting like it. It's never too early to start.

Friday, January 21, 2005


George W. Bush's Balls

Put 'em away George! We can't take any more!

I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of hearing about George Bush's balls. I really couldn't care less about how long he danced, what time he went to bed, who the caterer was, or how many balls he's had. And for God's sake, who the hell cares what Laura was wearing? She could wear a diamond studded gown and it wouldn't change anything. She's still a doormat for a moron.

But no, we have to hear about it all. We need to know how long he danced at each of the ten balls he attended. We need to know who the chef was for the "Black Tie and Boots" ball and how he prepares his brisket. Why? Because it's important, dammit! This stuff matters!

Actually, the reason we keep hearing about Bush's balls is because there isn't anything else positive to report on this hayseed. Honestly, what are they going to report? Are they going to say that he spent $44 million on this little shindig while he's considering cutting Medicaid? I don't think so. Or maybe they could report about the thirty-eight American troops that have been killed in Iraq so far this month. Or they could always report on the fake social security crisis the Bush administration is trying to push on us. Or they could even report about the impending arrest of Ahmed Chalabi, George's guest of honor at his last State of the Union address.

But no, none of those things are as important as George W. Bush's balls. So we get to hear about how big George's balls are. And we get to hear about how lavish George's balls are. And frankly, I'm getting a little nauseated by all the attention George's balls are getting. I can only hope that we don't have to hear about Laura's bush anytime soon. There's no way I could deal with that!

Thursday, January 20, 2005


Now He Tells Us

According to Heart Attack Jones, we "miscalculated" in Iraq.

First of all, if he just figured out that we may have "miscalculated" then he's a complete moron. We've been miscalculating in Iraq since sometime around 2002. I'd like to hear him tell the families of our 1,300 dead soldiers that we may have miscalculated. "Sorry Mrs. Smith, we seem to have miscalculated your son's life away." Bullshit! Miscalculated my ass. We didn't miscalculate we fucked up! Plain and simple. We covered our ears and sang "la la la" like a snotty little child when anyone dared to contradict us and now we say we miscalculated. If this was a miscalculation I'd hate to see what things would be like if we had been wrong.

Second of all, this is a complete fucking lie. How could we not "realize the lasting devastation wrought by Saddam Hussein on his people after the first Gulf War?" We've got satellite pictures that are capable of pinpointing the exact locations of fictitious WMD labs and we're supposed to believe that we were clueless about the "lasting devestation?" Clueless, yes, but not about this. We knew what Saddam had been doing during that time. We had documentation about the torture rooms and rape rooms didn't we? We'd been monitoring his activities through the UN since the end of the Gulf War, hadn't we. What about all of the atrocities he had commited? Hell, we even knew how many Kurds he had gassed with the chemical and biological agents we gave him back in the eighties, but we're expected to believe that we didn't know anything about the lasting devesatation. Sure, Dick. Whatever you say.

Now some might call me cynical, but maybe the "devestation" he's referring to was actually caused by us when we rushed into Iraq without knowing what the hell we were doing in the first place. Maybe if we had gone in with enough troops we could have secured the country and prevented some of this "devestation" from happening. Maybe if we hadn't rushed in to secure the oil fields while leaving the rest of the country completely unguarded we could have fended off some of the "devestation." And who's to blame for the bombed out buildings and neighborhoods? And who's to blame for the lack of drinking water and electricity that sections of the country are still suffering from? And who's to blame for the multitude of terrorists that are now in Iraq due to the unsecured borders? How about those things Dick? Did we miscalculate there too?

We didn't just miscalculate here folks, we screwed the pooch on this one. We shit in our own bed and we're trying to blame it on someone else. Sorry Dick, you can't unscrew this pooch. It's all ours.

Wednesday, January 19, 2005


Remember When?

As Georgieboy prepares to take the Oath of Office tomorrow, I thought it might be kind of fun to look back and reflect upon what he promised us four years ago.

Well, that didn't happen did it?

Apparently he forgot to forget.

Blah, blah, blah...

And my personal favorites:

Yeah, right!

He sure fucked that one up, didn't he?


All of these quotes came from the first half of the first debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore on October 3, 2000. What an ambitious little boy George was. It's too bad all of this turned out to be complete bullshit! I'm sure we can count on more of the same for the next four years.

Tuesday, January 18, 2005


The More Things Change...

Yesterday I asked if anybody remembered what was in Al Gore's lockbox. The answer, obviously, was Social Security. Feeling a little nostalgic, I decided to go back and read the transcript from the first Bush/Gore debate and I found this exchange to be quite entertaining.

Telling isn't it? George didn't get it then and he sure as hell doesn't get it now.

Monday, January 17, 2005


"I Have A Dream..."

As our nation celebrates the birthday of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., it is likely that we have all seen the clip of Rev. King's infamous speech given on August 28, 1963. In the clip we see a passionate man speaking those memorable words "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" And while those words are indeed memorable and inspiring, there was more to that speech. Much more.

On that day Rev. King spoke of promise, hope, and desire. He spoke of hard times passed and good times to come. He spoke of hatred and love; despair and determination. But most of all, he spoke of the future.

You see, Rev. King knew that everything couldn't happen today. Things that matter take time. As the saying goes: "Rome wasn't built in a day." But we live in a society that wants instant gratification. We want things now. It doesn't matter how or why, as long as we get what we want and the future be damned. The evidence is in our leadership.

I'm so old that I can remember when our government was forward looking. Remember Bill Clinton's first campaign song, "Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)?" And what about that "Bridge to the Twenty-first Century?" President Clinton understood that the power of our nation didn't rest in the here and now, but in our future. Just as Rev. King spoke about the days to come, President Clinton spoke of tomorrows. They spoke of a better America.

George W. Bush doesn't understand this. George W. Bush doesn't look to the future when it comes to our country. Take education for instance. No Child Left Behind doesn't prepare our students for the future, it prepares them to pass a test today. At what point in their life is it going to be beneficial to know that the answer is almost never "E?" At what point in their life will it benefit them to know the "guess and check" method of mathematical problem solving? Outside of a standardized test, there is no use for these skills. We are preparing our students for today, not tomorrow. We're trying to improve our test scores immediately so that we look good today, to hell with what the future might bring.

Another example could be drawn form George Bush's handling of the budget surplusses. You remember surplusses don't you? Sure you do, they're the things that were squansered by the Bush tax cuts. To listen to them now, the Bush administration likes to say that the initial tax cuts were implemented as a way to help stimulate an economy that was in recession. But that's not what they were saying at the time.

So much for "save for a rainy day." Let's get the most out of it now and screw the future. It sure would be nice if we still had those surplusses to fall back on wouldn't it? Oh well, woulda-shoulda-coulda. Planning is for liberals.

What it comes down to is this: George W. Bush is threatening the future of our country with his live for today, take tomorrow as it comes attitude. While this may be the mantra of Generation X, the X-treme crowd, and aging rock-stars, it can not be the plan for our country's future. We need something more secure. The results may not be immediate, but as they say (one more cliche) patience is a virtue. As Democrats we have to do all we can to stop George W. Bush from threatening the future of our country any further. His erratic policies and haphazard planning are pushing our country ever closer to the brink of disaster for future generations. We must act now to stop this. It won't happen today, in fact it won't happen tomorrow either, but over time we can begin to regain the promise that our future once held.

By the way, with all of this talk about Social Security these days, I have to ask this: Does anybody remember what was in Al Gore's lockbox?

Al got it, why didn't George?

Friday, January 14, 2005



George W. Bush has apologized.....sort of.

After a four year inability to identify any mistakes, he kind of almost maybe came close to admitting to a couple.....sort of.

He went on to say:

Notice the word sorry never crossed his lips. Notice too the lack of any reference to a mistake. This guy admits to nothing. I'm reminded of the time during the 2000 campaign when, unaware that the microphone was open, he remarked to Dick Cheney, "There's Adam Clymer, major-league asshole from The New York Times." Did he apologize? Absolutely not! Did he say it was a mistake? Get real! In fact, his response was, "I regret that a private comment I made to the vice-presidential candidate made it into the public airwaves." That's nice. It's like saying, "I regret that I killed your entire family, I was only aiming for you." What is wrong with this guy? Why can't he admit that he's done a few things wrong?

This all makes me think about that episode of Happy Days where Fonzie has to say he's sorry. He keeps saying "I'm really so-o-o-r-r.... I'm really s-s-s-s-o-o-rr........." You see, he's too cool to admit any faults and is therefore unable to say the word. Well George, you aren't Fonzie (even though I'm pretty sure you like to think that you are). You can say the word.

If George W. Bush is unable to admit his mistakes, he is unable to learn from them. As George Bernard Shaw once said, "A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing." Until we have a president that is willing to learn from his mistakes, I fear for our nation.

Thursday, January 13, 2005



Yesterday we learned that the search for Iraq's WMDs had officially come to an end. Of course, they came up empty. While this doesn't surprise me, I am surprised at the lack of outrage over this. Where's the media coverage? One day later and it has almost completely disappeared off the radar. WTF? This was the reason we went to war. This is why we pissed off half of our allies. This is why we thumbed our nose at the UN. This is why we're spending billions. This is why our soldiers died. And what do we have to show for this? Jack shit!

Since the beginning of the year, we've already lost twenty-seven soldiers. Political figures are dying, election officials are being murdered, religious leaders are being gunned down, and with every attack more civilians die every day. All because we were told that Saddam possessed WMD. We weren't told just once, but several times. Sometimes multiple times per day. Our elected leaders told us. Our media told us. The people we're supposed to be able to trust misled us. And the result is thousands of dead and wounded.

Any self-respecting nation would be embarrassed, but our leaders continue to blame everyone but themselves. As a nation spirals out of control suffering nearly seventy attacks per day, the only thing we can do is say it wasn't our fault. It was bad intelligence. As the Rude Pundit said yesterday, we fucked the goat when it came to Iraq. It's going to take years to clean up this mess and even longer to repair our reputation around the world.

Thanks George. Thanks a lot.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005


Why Wait?

One of the things that plagued John Kerry during his run for President was his awful timing. He was accused of being soft on defense; so he waited. He was accused of being a flip flopper; so he waited. He was accused of lying about his military honors; so he waited. Finally, he began to fight back sometime around September. In the meantime, his reputation was dictated by the Republicans.

So I say, "Why wait?" If the Democrats want to win in '06 and '08 they need to get started now. It's never too early to start defining your opponent.

For instance, it's been announced that Newt Gingrich may be considering a run for the Presidency in 2008. Lord knows that Newt has plenty of baggage so let's start going through it. Let's drag out all the dirty laundry we can find. Put him on the defensive early and keep him there.

This is all part of my original proposal of controlling the language. We can't sit back and wait any longer. The minute a Republican announces that he or she may be considering a bid for office, we need to sic the dogs. Remember when Kerry announced that Edwards would be his veep? It took the Bush campaign about five minutes to post a web page listing all the negatives about him. My guess is that they had a page for very possible veep choice ready to go up as soon as Kerry made the announcement. We could take a lesson from that.

If we continue to wait, the Republicans will continue to define us. I say, "Why wait?" Strike early. Strike often.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005


The Disaster President


Every time there's a disaster that isn't caused by him, George W. Bush's approval ratings go up. However, when it comes to his own disasters his approval rating remains low. Why is that?

The truth is, George is good at making people believe that he's empathetic. To quote a previous office holder, he "feels your pain." When 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, he eventually made his way to the disaster site and said what everyone was hoping to hear. Ignoring the fact that he was unable to deliver on his promises, he endeared himself to a number of Americans by showing that he felt just like them. He was hurt, he was angry, and he was determined to seek justice. I think we all felt that way.

Now, fast-forward three years. When over 150,000 people died on December 26, he eventually made his way back from vacation and said what millions of Americans were hoping to hear. He was stunned, he was saddened, and he was determined to send whatever aide was necessary. Once again, I think we all felt that way.

So I ask you, faithful reader, based on these two incidents where Georgie-boy said what we were all thinking, "What is it that sets him apart from any of the rest of us?" If put in the same spot, wouldn't we have all said basically the same things in these two situations? Of course we would have. So would have Al Gore or John Kerry.

My point here is that he's benefiting from doing what anyone is capable of. So to truly understand his effectiveness we have to look at his approval ratings for things other than disasters of someone else's doing. Take Iraq, for instance. Approval rating: 42%. His approval rating on Social Security: 41%. And right track/wrong track numbers: 51% wrong track.

So when the pundits over at Faux News say that George W. Bush is someone that the average American identifies with, what they really mean is that he says what anyone else would be capable of after a tragedy and he fucks up everything else. Sounds like pretty much everyone I know.

Monday, January 10, 2005


"To me, the people have spoken."

Those were the words of Mel Gibson backstage at last night's People's Choice Awards after accepting the award for Best Film Drama. Funny thing is though, outside of Gibson's film The Passion(ate Tale Of Beating the Shit Out) Of The Christ, most of the awards went to strikingly unconservative-like winners.

For starters, the award for Best Film went to the ultra-unconservative Fahrenheit 9/11. Not bad for a movie full of "lies and propaganda." The award for Best TV Comedy went to the ultra-gay, anti-hetero show Will & Grace. So much for protecting the sanctity of one man and one woman. And finally, the award for Best New TV Drama went to the Monday Night Football controversy causing Desperate Housewives. Hooray for whores! To make matters worse for conservatives, it has been rumored on conservative websites that Mel Gibson went on to say that he felt a "kinship" with Michael Moore and that he liked Fahrenheit 9/11.

What I want to know is: How do movies like F 9/11 and shows like W & G win these awards based upon the votes of Americans when we're supposed to believe that this last election was won on values? Are we to believe that people who liked F 9/11 also voted for Bush? Are we supposed to believe that the eleven states who passed constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage are laughing right along with the homosexuals on W & G? And what about all those people that were outraged over Nicolette Sheridan's towel stunt on Monday Night Football? I suppose they all voted for that family-values show Desperate Housewives.

In truth, I think Mel Gibson may be exactly right. The people have spoken. The only problem is they don't speak the language we've been led to believe they do. Unless, of course, they're hypocrites. No, I'm sure that would never happen.

Friday, January 07, 2005


Who Else?

It was revealed today that the Bush administration had paid popular radio host Armstrong Williams almost a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayer money to speak positively about its No Child Left Behind act. While I'm not surprised that the White House would stoop to such a low level in order to promote itself, it does make me wonder: Who else is getting paid?

Really, is it beyond the realm of possibility that if they did it once that they would be willing to do it again. Or is it possible that this is not the first time that this has happened? We already know about the fake new reports that were issued to promote their Medicare prescription plan, so could it be that these are not isolated incidents but parts of a much wider plan? Knowing this administration's penchant for misleading, I would say that the odds are pretty good.

It all seems so Orwellian doesn't it? A government that controls the flow of information. A government that controls the flow of truth. We've already witnessed the Bush administration's revisionist approach to history: Iraq possessed WMD - no wait, we were freeing the Iraqi people from an evil dictator, yeah that's it. Now we're witnessing their control of the news. What we're dealing with here is real life Ministry of Truth (or MiniTru for you newspeakers out there). Basically, the government tells us what to believe.

So I ask again: Who else is getting paid? Could it be Rush? Or O'Reilly? What about Novak? Or maybe Hannity? The next time you see someone on television promoting a Bush administration idea like social security reform, tax reform, or tort reform, will you wonder? Will you question their motivation? Their honesty? I know I will.

Thursday, January 06, 2005


Eye Of The Beholder

On the surface, it may look as though the Democrats have lost yet another battle, but from this observers point of view it just might have been the party's most significant victory in almost a dozen years. For the first time in a long time, a handful of members from the Democratic party showed some backbone. And in the process they exposed, even if ever so briefly, the vile arrogance of the Republicans.

Today's objection was not about overturning the election. It was not about undermining the authority of the office of the president. It was simply the only way to shed light on what has become an all too common occurance; voting irregularities. However, despite repeated Democratic claims to the contrary, the Republicans would have you believe that this was simply a case of the Democrats being sore losers. The political equivalent of holding your breath and kicking your feet. You see, the only thing that Republicans understand is winning. They don't see a point to sticking your neck out for the average American if there's no election to be won. To them, today's actions by the Democrats were pointless.

But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what I witnessed today was indeed beautiful. Sure, we didn't win. We knew we wouldn't. Hell, we couldn't even get the majority of our own party to join the game. But that's the beauty of it all. Fighting hard even though there is no chance. Not giving up even though we know it's going to be hard. Today we saw Democrats that were willing to fight the good fight. We saw Democrats that weren't content to let the Republicans skate by. And we saw the hatred of the Republican party bared for all of America. The smugness. The arrogance. The self-righteous narcissism. It was all there. And it was beautiful.

Wednesday, January 05, 2005


Caught Between Faith and Science

A week and a half ago Mrs. kissfan and I were sitting in church listening to the sermon when the pastor said something that sparked my interest. With our regular pastor gone, the substitute pastor was speaking about the truth in creationism stating that evolution is nothing more than a theory that can't be proven. (Our regular pastor is much more liberal in his teachings than our substitute.) He then went on to talk about how each of us are unique for which he cited DNA as proof. This started me thinking: how can he dismiss science as theory but then use it as proof? And the more I thought, I came to realize that many Christians must be caught between their faith and science.

I immediately began racking my brain for other instances like this and surprisingly was able to come up with several rather quickly. I don't know why I haven't made this observation before, but it happens all the time. For instance, as I was listening to Rush Limbaugh recently (I'm kind of masochistic that way), I heard him argue against evolution but for natural selection all within a ten minute time frame. I remember thinking it was kind of ironic, but it didn't really sink in what was happening.

Truth is, this has been happening for years. While many Christians have tried to pass off science as theory (evolution, big bang, continental drift, etc.) they will revert to it to prove their point. I'm reminded of the ossuary that bore the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Who was brought in to authenticate the item? Why scientists of course. And what about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Or the Shroud of Turin? Both have used carbon dating to determine their age.

The thing is, many Christians are more than willing to use science when it suits their needs, but quickly dismiss it as unproven theory when it contradicts their beliefs. In my opinion, Christians really only have two options: swear off science entirely or admit their coexistence. As the former choice would also entail swearing off medicine, I believe their best bet would be to choose the latter. Maybe they can find comfort in the words of the Rev. C.O. Magee, a Presbyterian minister, “Any time religion gets involved in science, religion comes off looking like a bunch of nerds. . . . The Book of Genesis told who created the world and why it was created and science tells how it was done.”

Unfortunately, it looks as as though the evangelicals may have their own ideas about things. According to a new "evangelical" museum, neither science nor history are correct.

Nice. I guess historians are liberals too. Who's next? Mathmeticians? Will it ever stop?

Tuesday, January 04, 2005


Somtimes The Truth Gets In The Way

Sometimes your words have a way of comming back and biting you in the ass. Today, Senator Bill Frist got bit.

While I'm sure the people from PETA were pissed about the methodology employed for this research, the outcome is clearly more than "false hope." This is early research that could be developed further and improved upon with the proper research. However, research requires money and our government isn't willing to offer up any for this. So to all of you that might be able to benefit from something like this, "too bad, so sad." Our government appreciates your tax dollars but you're on your own. It's been nice knowing you.

What I think is truly sad about the conservative's opposition to this research is that they could be confining people to a needless death. Twenty years from now we may have the ability to cure these diseases like Parkinson's if the government would provide the necessary funding for this research. However, the conservative's reluctance to move forward on this has confined us to a future threatened by the same diseases we are facing right now. This is not the American way of doing things. We are a nation of invention. We are a nation of ingenuity. What if we had applied this same attitude to our other endeavors? Where would we be? Science and medicine would be primitive at best. We'd be stuck in the 1800s.

The true American way would be to break new ground and research this field in the hopes of finding new cures and leading the rest of the world into the new frontier of medicine. Too bad we don't do things like that anymore.

Sidenote: Bill Frist originally supported stem cell research back in 2001.

Rove must have met with him to straighten him out.

Monday, January 03, 2005


Phoning It In

When I hear all of the talk about sending aid to the tsunami victims, I must admit, I'm at a loss when it comes to knowing how much we should send. Sure, our initial offering of $15 million was pathetic at best, but I don't really know how much is appropriate. While I don't think it wise to engage in any kind of bidding war with other nations, I really can't say too much about the amount of funding we should be giving.

That being said, I think it is an embarassment to our country that George W. Bush wasn't even willing to cut his vacation short to address the situation. Now I know that he says that he can be just as effective from his "ranch" in Crawford, but the impression that this sends to other countries is: "We don't give a shit! Who the hell cares if 150,000 innocent people have died as a result of this. It didn't affect us and I've got brush to move."

Our global image is already at an all-time low. We don't need the rest of the world seeing us as insensitive to human suffering on top of it. How would we have reacted if on 9/11 the other world leaders just phoned in their condolences? Naturally, we'd have been pissed. But here we are eight days after the fact and George Bush is just now spending his first full day in the White House after his vacation.

As a nation we have to do better and like it or not George W. Bush is the face of this nation to the rest of the world. It would be nice if he at least acted as though he cares. Hell, he's been lying to us for the last four years, you would think he could lie to the rest of the world for a few days to save face. I guess that's too much to ask.

Sunday, January 02, 2005


Enough Already!

At the risk of pissing off damn near everyone in my hometown and incurring the wrath of conservatives everywhere, I've got to get this off my chest.

I have had it with these damned "Support Our Troops" magnets! Everywhere I look, I see them. They're on cars, vans, trucks, trailers, sheds, grain bins, at the gas station, the grocery store, the mini-mart, the hardware store, and the local restaurants. It's not that I have anything personal against our troops, but dammit, I'm tired of being ordered to support them. Maybe if they said something like "I Support Our Troops" or "Please Support Our Troops," I wouldn't find them so annoying. But they don't. Instead they practically shout at me everytime I see one. "Support Our Troops!" "Support Our Troops!" "Support Our Troops!" "Support Our Troops!"

The final straw came the other day as I was buying humidifier filters at one of our local department stores. As I headed to the front of the store to check out, there was a large message painted on the front wall of the building that said "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!" I wanted to ask the cashier why it's okay for them to order me to do something? And if I refuse then what ami, some sort of outcast? Am I un-American? Why don't they just say it like it is? Why don't they just say "Support The War, Dammit!" At least that would be honest.

Like I said, I don't have anything personal against the troops. I would like to see them brought safely home to their families. But here in Bumblefuck, Illinois, "Support Our Troops" means "Support Our President." We were one of the reddest counties in the entire state and my particular hometown was one of the reddest towns in the county. Just as an example, when the high school where I teach held their mock election in November, Alan Keyes received 48% of the vote against Barack Obama. 48%! I'm pretty sure that my house was one of only a handful to display a Kerry/Edwards sign in my yard. (I still have K/E signs in my windows just so there's no confusion as to who I voted for.) So here, "Support Our Troops" means more than just what it says.

In my opinion, I am supporting our troops by wanting them to be brought home safely. Forcing them to be in harm's way for an unjust war is a strange way of showing support. Personally, I think that supporting the war and the person who started it is just the opposite of supporting our troops. However, I'm not shouting at everyone and ordering them to feel the same as me. Maybe I need my own ribbon. One that says "I Support Our Troops...But Not The War."

What do you think?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by